> The possibility (and even occurrence) of memory safety issues and memory corruption doesn't tank a project, or make it more costly than if you'd used a GC, or Rust. Memory bugs range from very easily avoided and solved to surprising and very, very hard to solve.
I never said this. The Linux kernel and any other project will thrive with or without Rust. But it is a certainty that the higher the ratio of C-to-Rust in the world (or well, any memory-safe systems language), the higher the amount of CVEs we will see. It would seem reasonable to me to assume that we want as few CVEs as possible.
To be honest, I also don't understand the dogmatic stance a lot of C developers have against Rust. Yes, it does cause some friction to learn a new language. But many of the correct idioms Rust enforces are things you should be doing in C anyway, its just that the compiler is a lot more strict instead of just nagging you, or not even nagging at all.
I never said this. The Linux kernel and any other project will thrive with or without Rust. But it is a certainty that the higher the ratio of C-to-Rust in the world (or well, any memory-safe systems language), the higher the amount of CVEs we will see. It would seem reasonable to me to assume that we want as few CVEs as possible.
To be honest, I also don't understand the dogmatic stance a lot of C developers have against Rust. Yes, it does cause some friction to learn a new language. But many of the correct idioms Rust enforces are things you should be doing in C anyway, its just that the compiler is a lot more strict instead of just nagging you, or not even nagging at all.